Oct 27, 2012

The Minneapolis Star Tribune and Rochester Post Bulletin have joined the New Ulm Journal and Worthington Globe in endorsing Congressman Tim Walz for re-election to a fourth term. Meanwhile, the Mankato Free Press, the district's daily nearest to home for Walz and challenger Allen Quist, has reiterated its no endorsement policy.

In Tim Walz deserves a fourth term, the Star Tribune editorial board cites Walz's leadership on the STOCK Act, veterans and farm legislation as reasons for supporting the Mankato legislator. They conclude:

Walz, 48, is running against former Republican legislator and gubernatorial candidate Allen Quist. The Quist campaign's focus on the national debt rather than the divisive social issues he's known for is welcome. But Quist's unyielding positions on additional tax revenue or reforming Medicare or Social Security run counter to Simpson-Bowles and every other credible debt-reduction plan. He would impede a "grand bargain" to rein in red ink. Walz, in contrast, is a bridge-builder who would work to forge the best deal for the country.

. . .Walz tempers his convictions with
pragmatism, and on that basis, we're endorsing him for a fourth term
representing Minnesota's First District.

During his six years in office, he's proven that he can make arguments about what should be done, but then move on to what can
be done. His experience as a soldier, a high school teacher and a
football coach have made him fully aware that theories and principles
look good in field manuals, curriculum guides and playbooks, but reality
is far different.

Allen Quist repeatedly refers to himself as "a numbers guy," and that's
good as far as it goes, but government is more than a numbers game. Tim
Walz knows the numbers, and his vision for the future includes a better
national balance sheet, but he also wants to make sure that our
veterans, indebted students, the hungry and the uninsured have a chance
to enjoy some prosperity, too.

Four years ago, we adopted the policy of no longer providing
endorsements. . . .This year . . .Everyone is looking for an edge to their side
and we’re getting challenged to take a side. We respectfully decline. . . .

I can’t speak for all newspapers, but I don’t think newspapers should
be in the business of making kings — or telling people how they should
think. Regardless of who is sitting in the seats of power, each should
be held accountable to whom they represent, and that’s the job of news
organizations.

An endorsement appears to give a seal of approval and taints the
perception of readers of our true intent, regardless of how hard we work
at fairness. . . .

We will . . .recount what issues we feel are important to this region and this state
and raise questions we feel need to be addressed. . . .

This year, you also will decide for yourself on constitutional
amendments. Our job is to provide as much information — and opinions —
from all sides that we can so you can make an intelligent choice.

In a democracy, it is the people who decide how they want to be
governed — not one individual, not a party, not a movement and certainly
not a newspaper.

Veteran Free Press political reporter Mark Fischenich does just that--provide information--in a pair of articles covering Quist and Walz. Both articles are marked by Fischenich's able, understated writing which nonetheless catches nuance.

In the 2012 race Quist also has emphasized a marriage penalty he
identified in the health care reform commonly called Obamacare.
Unmarried individuals making $30,000 each would, if their incomes were
combined through marriage, lose thousands of dollars in federal
subsidies for medical insurance, he said.

Supporters of the bill said the numbers are typical for income-based
government subsidies, but Quist contends the provision is an intentional
attempt by liberals to undermine the institution of marriage.

He called it a “hidden agenda” of Obamacare in speaking to a North
Mankato audience in August: “And let me be very explicit, this is
designed to destroy marriage for the middle class.”

In a recent interview, Quist was asked why Democrats would be motivated
to destroy marriage. He said he wouldn’t speculate about their motives
but remains convinced they are seeking to sabotage marriage.

“It was deliberate, and they had to know this would damage the
family,” he said. “... The people that put the bill together knew you
would get substantially fewer married people because you are penalizing
marriage, and I find that to be horrific.”

. . .Grading Walz on the implementation of his agenda after three terms
would probably show marks at both ends of the spectrum. On veterans
issues, Walz has been successful enough to win him the highest honors
bestowed by a variety of veterans groups. American troops have been
withdrawn from Iraq. Federal economic stimulus bills included
substantial middle-class tax cuts.

Walz this year passed — over the opposition of more than a few
congressional heavyweights — the STOCK Act (Stop Trading On
Congressional Knowledge). The bill prohibits lawmakers and their staffs
from using inside information gleaned at the Capitol to enrich
themselves on the stock market.

“I’m proud to run on my record,” Walz said. “It’s a very difficult
environment right now to get anything done, but I’ve not shied away from
what I think are fundamental things.”

“If you try to talk about how the problem started, they shut you off:
‘Oh No, that’s then. What about now?’” Walz said of his opponents. “You
can’t solve any problem without understanding how it really started
because that makes sure the solutions you’re putting into place don’t
repeat those very same problems.”

Walz said he supports spending cuts and voted for a 2011 Democratic
proposal to make $2.2 trillion in unspecified budget reductions.

He rejects the idea that the deficit can be eliminated solely through
spending reductions, while also dismissing any suggestion that raising
taxes on wealthy Americans will get the job done.

“Let me be very clear. That alone will not do it,” Walz said. “You’re
not going to tax the top 2 percent and balance this budget. It has got
to be a balanced approach.”

The paper also provides a sidebar article contrasting each candidate on major issues. Taken together, the three articles underscore Santori's points. Good stuff.